Krasne v. Mayo Clinic, The

Background

Ira Mark Krasne was injured in a shower while receiving inpatient rehabilitation treatment at The Mayo Clinic. The shower chair involved in the accident was allegedly designed or manufactured by Fort Metal Plastic Products (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. and distributed by Medical Depot, Inc.

Mr. Krasne sued the Mayo Defendants for negligence and medical negligence. He sued Medical Depot and Fort Metal for negligence and products liability. Mayo sought partial summary judgment, which is a ruling ending part of a case when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. Mayo argued that Mr. Krasne had not provided enough expert testimony to prove that the accident caused his permanent, long-term, or chronic injuries. Medical Depot joined Mayo’s motion, and Fort Metal took no position.

The parties’ arguments

Minnesota medical-malpractice claims require expert testimony on essential elements, including the applicable standard of care, a breach of that standard, causation, and damages. Mayo argued that Mr. Krasne’s expert disclosures were both late and inadequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Mayo also argued that the disclosures did not sufficiently explain the experts’ opinions about the cause of Mr. Krasne’s long-term injuries.

Mr. Krasne argued that he did not need an opening expert disclosure on causation because Mayo’s expert, Dr. Mark J. Fallen, had admitted that the shower-chair injury caused his short-term injuries. He also argued that he could testify himself about his continuing pain and other long-term symptoms. Alternatively, he asked for an opportunity to provide fuller expert disclosures.

Court’s analysis

The Court concluded that Dr. Fallen’s report did not admit that the shower-chair accident caused Mr. Krasne’s chronic or permanent injuries. Dr. Fallen stated that the injury likely caused the noted testicular hematomas, but he did not believe that the testicular injury caused Mr. Krasne’s chronic abdominal, groin, and testicular discomfort.

The Court also ruled that Mr. Krasne could not establish causation for his longer-term injury claims through his own testimony alone. The Court determined that expert testimony was necessary to connect the shower-chair injury to his ongoing symptoms. It stated that this requirement applied whether the evidence was characterized as proof of causation for longer-term injuries or as evidence about the extent of damages.

The Court nevertheless declined to grant summary judgment immediately or exclude Mr. Krasne’s experts. Although it found the disclosures for Dr. James Gaede and Dr. Lee W. Erlendson inadequate under Rule 26(a)(2), it considered exclusion of testimony about an essential element of the case a severe remedy. The Court relied on an earlier decision in which a plaintiff received an opportunity to correct inadequate expert disclosures before the witnesses were excluded and summary judgment was entered.

Order

The Court denied without prejudice Mayo’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. “Without prejudice” was part of the Court’s stated disposition. The Court denied as moot Medical Depot’s motion to join Mayo’s motion because Mayo’s motion was denied.

The Court granted Mr. Krasne 30 days from the date of the order to supplement his disclosures concerning Dr. Gaede and Dr. Erlendson. The Court allowed him to decide whether to identify them as primary rather than rebuttal experts and whether to provide written reports. Mayo may seek targeted additional discovery if needed because of the revised disclosures. The parties were directed to contact Magistrate Judge Wright about any schedule changes.